Reps. Gary Miller and Grace Napolitano have paid family members – and in Miller’s case, his own company – tens of thousands of dollars for work on their congressional campaigns, according to a study by a political watchdog group.

The report, released Monday by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, profiled key committee members and top party leaders.

Of the 337 members examined, a total of 96 Republicans and Democrats paid $5.8 million to family members or companies owned by family members or their employers over the past three election cycles.

Federal campaign laws allow candidates to pay family members for “bona fide, campaign-related services” as long as the payments have a fair-market value.

But making sure family members are qualified for the work, and determining the nature of that work, make it difficult to make sure candidates are not funneling campaign funds through their family members for personal use, said CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan.

The study “shines a spotlight on the troubling practice of lawmakers using their congressional positions as profit centers for family members,” said Sloan in a statement issued by Washington, D.C.-based CREW. She added that the group hopes the report will spur debate and lead to changes in existing laws allowing the hiring of family members for campaigns.

Napolitano, D-Santa Fe Springs, paid her daughter, Yolanda Dyer, and her consulting firm a total of $52,694 in salary and reimbursements between the 2002 and 2006 elections, according to the report.

Chairwoman of the Natural Resources Committee’s subcommittee on water and power, Napolitano said that her daughter ran all of her campaigns and was in fact underpaid for her services.

“She was not only my campaign manager but my treasurer,” said Napolitano, adding that Dyer and her firm, Hardye & Associates, were more than qualified for the work. “She paid all my bills, called donors to get all the information needed to report their contributions, and paid for a lot of materials for fundraising events.

“When you look at all the work she has done for me since I was elected to Congress, is peanuts,” she added.

Miller, ranking member of the Financial Services Committee’s subcommittee for oversight and investigations, paid sons Brian and Loren about $5,300 between 2002 and 2004, according to the report.

The Brea Republican is already facing scrutiny for past land deals and earmarks that benefited a major campaign contributor.

Miller’s spokesman, Scott Toussaint, said the campaign payments were for minor campaign work including assembling signs, photography and office work.

“It was essentially reimbursing them for their time,” Toussaint said.

The CREW report also noted that between 2002 and 2006, Miller paid nearly $125,000 to rent office space, office equipment and for fundraising expenses to his own company, G. Miller Development.

In 2002, his campaign also donated $95,372 to the “Miller for Assembly” campaign.

The donation was made to pay off debt from the congressman’s previous run for state Assembly, a move allowed by federal law, Toussaint said.

As for the payments to Miller’s company, Toussaint said the congressman worked “hand in glove” with the Federal Election Commission to make sure that no campaign laws were broken.

“As much as CREW would like to paint it as funneling money to himself, nothing could be further from the truth,” said Toussaint. “He set up a bright line between campaign purposes and business purposes.”

Toussaint added that Miller’s wife, Cathy, has worked for his campaigns on a purely voluntary basis and has not collected a dime, except for expense reimbursements.

Michelle Ryan, a spokeswoman for the Federal Elections Commission, could not confirm whether there was any conversation between Miller’s office and the FEC about the congressman’s use of his company’s offices for campaign purposes.

The CREW report, which focused on all House committee and subcommittee chairmen, chairwomen and ranking members, is not the first to raise the issue of campaign nepotism.

Earlier this month, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena, proposed legislation barring candidates’ spouses from collecting campaign checks and requiring disclosure of all other immediate family members who are employed by the candidates’ campaigns.

“The practice of paying family members for work done on campaigns can breed corruption and invite abuse,” said Schiff in introducing his bill, which has already drawn support from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. “Candidates run for federal office to serve the public, not to financially profit from the campaign.”

But at least one watchdog group, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, feels that such a bill is unnecessary.

“The law is already pretty clear and expenditures already have to be fully disclosed,” said Kris Vosburgh, the group’s executive director. “This is campaign money, which is essentially private money, so as long as they report their expenses, you almost have to err on the side of trusting the judgement of the candidates.”

He added that the system is set up to be self-correcting.

“If you hire incompetent people, family or not, then the campaign is going to be inefficient and they are liable to lose their seats,” Vosburgh said. “So if you are going to hire sons, daughters, wives or husbands, you better be prepared to justify the move to your donors, because it will reflect on your judgement.”

In perhaps the most visible case of alleged nepotism by a Congress member, Rep. John Doolittle, R-Granite Bay, was forced to relinquish his post on the powerful Appropriations Committee in April after an FBI raid on his home.

The investigation involves Doolittle’s wife, Julie, whose fundraising firm allegedly benefited from commissions on donations made to the congressman’s campaign.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.